[TriLUG] [OT] TriLUGger on the news

Sat May 19 12:05:22 EDT 2007

Okay, I haven't admittedly followed this thread thoroughly.  I 
personally and not opposed to toll roads where it makes sense.  Like on 
an interstate road where people are using it as means to another 
destination.  Example, people using I95 to get south of NC to SC, FL, 
etc.  I am opposed to toll roads where the primary use is for people to 
get back and forth to work and general every day life use like 540.  If 
I'm not mistaken I've already paid for use of this road with my taxes.  
To make people pay for again everyday just for absurd.  I'm more than 
willing to defer further construction till funds are available.  Of 
course I live in Wake Forest, so I'm in the part of 540 that's finished 
:)  Again I-80 rolling through Ohio is a perfectly fine toll road, no 
one's destination is Ohio :)   Toll roads should be on roads that are 
used on pass through roads, not local community roads.

Matt P.

Tom Eisenmenger wrote:
> David, Steve, Kevin, and others have all made some good points - now  
> if I might step in and offer a different perspective:
>
> I live in Roanoke Rapids which is in one of the poorest, least  
> economically-developed areas of the state.  It is this way because  
> good-paying jobs are scarce due in no small part to the lack of a  
> decent transportation infrastructure.  One way to attract relocating  
> businesses to this area is to revitalize our local highway system:   
> for eastern NC this means to widen US158 into a 4-lane divided  
> highway from Henderson to Kitty Hawk, complete the widening of US64  
> from Williamston to Manteo, likewise US70 from Smithfield to Morehead  
> City, and US258 running north-south from VA to SC.  Many of these are  
> proposed DOT projects that have been deferred for years or even  
> decades.  They are perpetually on the back burner because projects in  
> the state's metropolitan areas, especially the Triangle, routinely  
> take precedence over projects in more rural areas.  No wonder - the  
> seat of power is, after all, in Raleigh.
>
> So now we come to I-540, the last of several Triangle projects to  
> bump the widening of US158 and others from the DOT's priority list.   
> This project is not surprisingly over schedule and over budget,  
> whether due to a spike in construction costs or to "mismanagement" it  
> doesn't really matter.  Now, Wake County is informed that it will be  
> 2032 (!) before the new beltway will be completed unless additional  
> funding is forthcoming.  While I sympathize somewhat with your "free  
> roads" movement, I do think it unfair for you to expect the rest of  
> the state to continue to subsidize your road construction whilst  
> projects needed elsewhere are deferred yet again.
>
> (I would like to think that the DOT has recognized that its  
> priorities must shift else the economic divide between urban and  
> rural regions will continue to grow but the reality is probably not  
> as noble.  I would also suggest that it is largely this economic  
> divide funneling economic development into the urban areas that is  
> fueling your rapid growth and causing all sorts of other problems -  
> can you say "year-round schools"?)
>
> I think the choice before you is reasonable:  wait until the 2030s  
> for the project to be completed when time and funding allow as other  
> DOT projects are assigned priority or expedite the project by funding  
> it with tolls.    You could raise additional revenues through taxes  
> but that means a certain increase in the gasoline tax which is a  
> regressive tax that hits the poor particularly hard.  You don't have  
> to have tolls as long as you're willing to defer your own project for  
> a while - imagine that!!
>
> FWIW, while my local Chamber of Commerce is opposed to a toll I-95  
> corridor, I have supported the idea as long as its generated revenue  
> is applied to the projects noted above.  After all, what is more fair  
> than those who most benefit from the building of a thoroughfare -   
> those who actually use it - being the ones who pay a little extra for  
> it?
>
> If it makes you feel any better, I do object to just a portion of  
> I-540 being designated toll - if this plan is to be implemented then  
> the entire beltline should be a toll road until the beltline project  
> is completed.
>
> Oh, and to further get under your skin - I'm typing this up on a Mac  
> Mini running OS X ;-)
>
> Sheesh - guess I'll have to wear a paper bag over my head to the next  
> TriLUG meeting...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On May 18, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
>
>   
>> On Friday 18 May 2007 07:05, Kevin Otte wrote:
>>     
>>> Jeremy Portzer wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> How about a compromise?  Tolls for single occupant SUVs on 540?
>>>>>           
>>>> I'm sure hybrid vehicles would be excepted though.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> --Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> (David drives a hybrid SUV, for those wondering what the heck  
>>>> this part
>>>> of the thread is about...)
>>>>         
>>> While I recognize the humor intended by Andrew's statement, the  
>>> problem
>>> is the tolls aren't for environmental protection purposes.
>>>       
>> As a matter of fact, all the slowing down and speeding up burns  
>> more gas and
>> pollutes more.
>>
>> SteveT
>>
>> Steve Litt
>> Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
>> http://www.troubleshooters.com/
>> -- 
>> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> trilug
>> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
>> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>>     
>
>   